regeneratia Posted January 7, 2014 #1 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Lately I have been disgusted with mainstream media about their silence on Fukushima. But that doesn't mean we cannot get the news abotu it. This link was sent to me by someone, trained in radiation issues, who is scared doodoo-less about Fukushima. Could this be the answer to the Fukushima plant 3, the plant that deliberately enrichces uranium: http://www.bauer.de/export/shared/pdf/bma/products/methods/905-656-2.pdf I am not an expert on this issue. However I am eager to read the discussion that might follow this thread. *** To the trolls, it is obvious to everyone that you are trolling when you are trolling, while you are trying to miniimize the impact of just about EVERYTHING. Everyone knows who you are. My request to all others is not to respond to the inane trolls. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keel M. Posted January 7, 2014 #2 Share Posted January 7, 2014 At the risk of sounding like a troll... I fail to see what your link has to do with solving a problem at Fukushima. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted January 7, 2014 #3 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Maybe. Could work. Anything is worth a shot, instead of waiting for it to explode like Chernobyl..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted January 7, 2014 #4 Share Posted January 7, 2014 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regeneratia Posted January 7, 2014 Author #5 Share Posted January 7, 2014 This is far worse than anything that happened in Russia. The pacific ocean is seriously at risk, if not already dead. Maybe. Could work. Anything is worth a shot, instead of waiting for it to explode like Chernobyl..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted January 7, 2014 #6 Share Posted January 7, 2014 This technique is to create ditches to be filled with concrete later on as a sub surface barrier for example. It might preclude the dispersal of liquid radioactive materials on a (limited) horizontal level, but not at the vertical level. A total 360° cover cannot be established with that technology. But in total, sub surface barriers plus roofing will be better that nothing. But I have no idea if this can be build now in F. as I do not have knowledge about the actual local situation at the plants locations and if such projects can be conducted due to radiation levels at the location because the machines are not remote controlled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted January 7, 2014 #7 Share Posted January 7, 2014 This is far worse than anything that happened in Russia.[...] Any source for such claim? Don't bother with naturalnews and other fearmongering crackpotish websites. [...] The pacific ocean is seriously at risk, if not already dead. Of course, Pacific is completely sterilized with radiation below detection (ND) limits (as of Dec 29/30, 2013). And thats in close proximity of Fukushima NPS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted January 7, 2014 #8 Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) This is far worse than anything that happened in Russia. The pacific ocean is seriously at risk, if not already dead. What happened in Russia? Edited January 7, 2014 by toast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regeneratia Posted January 8, 2014 Author #9 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I don't have to provide a source for an opinion, dear. Any source for such claim? Don't bother with naturalnews and other fearmongering crackpotish websites. Of course, Pacific is completely sterilized with radiation below detection (ND) limits (as of Dec 29/30, 2013). And thats in close proximity of Fukushima NPS... Come on, fella!! Think. What happened in Russia? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted January 8, 2014 #10 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Come on, fella!! Think. Do you mean the Chernobyl disaster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted January 8, 2014 #11 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I don't have to provide a source for an opinion, dear. But opinion has to based on something, not just on thin air.Here is another bit of data: Sea Area Monitoring (from Nuclear Regulation Authority; page 8, measurements taken in May 2013). ~300 km east from the coast of Japan radiation levels (Cs-137) were about 3 mBq/L (3 Bq/m3). That is more than 1000 (thousand) times lower than safety levels of ~10Bq/L (WHO, Drinking-water quality, Radiological aspects, Table 9.3). And more facts: In 1960s concentrations of Cs-137 in surface waters (Pacific) were reaching 10 Bq/m3 and more, in 1990s - ~2 Bq/m3(K.Hirose, M.Aoyama, Deep-Sea Res Pt II, 50 (2003) 2675-2700). So, don't let fearmongers to deceive you. Look for facts, not wild speculations based on "opinions". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regeneratia Posted January 8, 2014 Author #12 Share Posted January 8, 2014 But opinion has to based on something, not just on thin air. Here is another bit of data: Sea Area Monitoring (from Nuclear Regulation Authority; page 8, measurements taken in May 2013). ~300 km east from the coast of Japan radiation levels (Cs-137) were about 3 mBq/L (3 Bq/m3). That is more than 1000 (thousand) times lower than safety levels of ~10Bq/L (WHO, Drinking-water quality, Radiological aspects, Table 9.3). And more facts: In 1960s concentrations of Cs-137 in surface waters (Pacific) were reaching 10 Bq/m3 and more, in 1990s - ~2 Bq/m3(K.Hirose, M.Aoyama, Deep-Sea Res Pt II, 50 (2003) 2675-2700). So, don't let fearmongers to deceive you. Look for facts, not wild speculations based on "opinions". Yes, I realize there is fear-mongering going on about Fukushima as well. I take that into account, even while my scientist spouse bombards me with this fear-mongering issue almost hourly these days. Also had wondered about the radiation leaking into the ocean and how it is not stopped by this method. But then, I can only think about the surface of this huge gadget in the pdf. I have no idea the logistics of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted January 8, 2014 #13 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Yes, I realize there is fear-mongering going on about Fukushima as well. I take that into account, even while my scientist spouse bombards me with this fear-mongering issue almost hourly these days. Also had wondered about the radiation leaking into the ocean and how it is not stopped by this method. But then, I can only think about the surface of this huge gadget in the pdf. I have no idea the logistics of it. Do you mean the Chernobyl disaster? ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted January 8, 2014 #14 Share Posted January 8, 2014 ? She meant Chernobyl, 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted January 8, 2014 #15 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Yes, I realize there is fear-mongering going on about Fukushima as well. I take that into account, [...] OK, fair enough, though I did get quite different impression from your "if not already dead". [...] even while my scientist spouse bombards me with this fear-mongering issue almost hourly these days. [...] Let me guess, "Fukushima plant 3, the plant that deliberately enrichces uranium" came from him as well? Uranium enrichment facilities Ningyo-toge and Rokkasho-mura are quite distant from Fukushima Daiichi NPS, and I couldn't find any sign of "Fukushima plant 3, the plant that deliberately enrichces uranium", zilch, zip, nada, zero... [...] Also had wondered about the radiation leaking into the ocean and how it is not stopped by this method. [...] You can look for data (updated daily) at various "points" of Daiichi NPS.As for "how it is not stopped by this method" - thats for engineers who are working on the site, and who know situation far more better than me, you, or our spouse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted January 8, 2014 #16 Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) She meant Chernobyl, 100%. Yeah, but Chernobyl isn´t in Russia. This is far worse than anything that happened in Russia. Edited January 8, 2014 by toast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted January 8, 2014 #17 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Yeah, but Chernobyl isn't in Russia. Many people aren't good in geography, and many people put "=" between former USSR and Russia. Just my 2 cents. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now